I first searched Wikipedia for "berry picking knowledge", but nothing related to the search strategy model came up. I then tightened up the search by inputting "berry picking information retrieval strategy", which produced two truly bizarre results: "spawn (biology)" and "desert". Wikipedia informed me that I could ask for a page about the berry picking information retrieval strategy to be created, but I chose to change the search entry to "berrypicking model" instead. This yielded the results that I was looking for: three hits - 1. cognitive models of information retrieval (section Berrypicking); 2. Marcia J. Bates (the creator of the berrypicking model); and 3. Browsing.
I clicked on "browsing" and was informed that it was an important subject in Library and Information Science, and that for the topic of herbivore "browsing", I should check out another page. I was also informed by Wikipedia that the article lacked inline citations, and would I please add some to make it more precise. Unfortunately I had no citations to add.
Scrolling down the page led me to this entry:
"Controversies [edit source | editbeta]
As with any kind of human psychology is browsing understood in biological, behavioral or cognitive terms on the one hand or in social, historical and cultural terms on the other hand. Marcia Bates (2007) researched browsing from "behavioural" approaches, while Hjørland (2011a+b) defended a social view. Bates found that browsing is rooted in our history as exploratory, motile animals hunting for food and nesting opportunities. According to Hjørland (2011a), on the other hand, Marcia Bates' browsing for information about browsing is governed by her behavioral assumptions, while Hjørland's browsing for information about browsing is governed by his socio-cultural understanding of human psychology. In short: Human browsing is based on our conceptions and interests."
I would definitely edit the first sentence, since it barely makes sense without commas. The entire paragraph seems very disjointed; the last sentence has nothing to do with the controversy between Bates and Hjorland, and I don't think that the description of Bates' theory is adequate. Poorly written, is my diagnosis.
So I clicked on Marcia Bates to see what Wikipedia has to say about her. I ran into the following interesting warning: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (September 2012)"
Well, that's interesting. I'm glad to know that Wikipedia doesn't condone libel, although I wouldn't want to be the person deciding the definition of "contentious material".
Reading about Marcia Bates' career and her contributions to search strategy theory was pretty interesting. This article did note that she and Hjorland "discussed", "responded" and "rejoinded" their respective theories. Despite the fact that "rejoinded" is not a word - it should be "rejoinder", which is a noun that the Wikipedia author apparently tried to turn into a verb - it was obvious from this sentence that Bates and Hjorland had an argument about who was right. Quite clever the way that the Wikipedia author avoided any libelous statements, by attempting to create a new English verb.
I just had to complete my research about berrypicking on Wikipedia by clicking on the first hit, "cognitive models of information retrieval (section Berrypicking)", which Wikipedia informed me had no links to other articles, making it a sad and lonely orphan. I felt sorry for it, especially since one would think that such a diverse topic would have many links. Anyway, I would link it to Bates and Hjorlands' pages, since they are obviously extremely interested in this topic.
I was proud to note that "Berrypicking" was the first category listed; Marcia Bates was prominently noted as its originator; and Hjorland was nowhere to be seen. Bates' theory was simply and easily explained, but a random sentence about a man named Salton was thrown in the middle of the explanation, which rather threw one off. Sadly there was no link attached to Salton's name, although the citation led one to a computer science article published in 1968. Clicking on the citation yielded the information that Gerard Salton was quite well-known in the field of computer science, so perhaps having his name connected with her theory somehow helps matters. Marcia Bates was not mentioned in his Wikipedia entry.
"Controversies [edit source | editbeta]
As with any kind of human psychology is browsing understood in biological, behavioral or cognitive terms on the one hand or in social, historical and cultural terms on the other hand. Marcia Bates (2007) researched browsing from "behavioural" approaches, while Hjørland (2011a+b) defended a social view. Bates found that browsing is rooted in our history as exploratory, motile animals hunting for food and nesting opportunities. According to Hjørland (2011a), on the other hand, Marcia Bates' browsing for information about browsing is governed by her behavioral assumptions, while Hjørland's browsing for information about browsing is governed by his socio-cultural understanding of human psychology. In short: Human browsing is based on our conceptions and interests."
I would definitely edit the first sentence, since it barely makes sense without commas. The entire paragraph seems very disjointed; the last sentence has nothing to do with the controversy between Bates and Hjorland, and I don't think that the description of Bates' theory is adequate. Poorly written, is my diagnosis.
So I clicked on Marcia Bates to see what Wikipedia has to say about her. I ran into the following interesting warning: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (September 2012)"
Well, that's interesting. I'm glad to know that Wikipedia doesn't condone libel, although I wouldn't want to be the person deciding the definition of "contentious material".
Reading about Marcia Bates' career and her contributions to search strategy theory was pretty interesting. This article did note that she and Hjorland "discussed", "responded" and "rejoinded" their respective theories. Despite the fact that "rejoinded" is not a word - it should be "rejoinder", which is a noun that the Wikipedia author apparently tried to turn into a verb - it was obvious from this sentence that Bates and Hjorland had an argument about who was right. Quite clever the way that the Wikipedia author avoided any libelous statements, by attempting to create a new English verb.
I just had to complete my research about berrypicking on Wikipedia by clicking on the first hit, "cognitive models of information retrieval (section Berrypicking)", which Wikipedia informed me had no links to other articles, making it a sad and lonely orphan. I felt sorry for it, especially since one would think that such a diverse topic would have many links. Anyway, I would link it to Bates and Hjorlands' pages, since they are obviously extremely interested in this topic.
I was proud to note that "Berrypicking" was the first category listed; Marcia Bates was prominently noted as its originator; and Hjorland was nowhere to be seen. Bates' theory was simply and easily explained, but a random sentence about a man named Salton was thrown in the middle of the explanation, which rather threw one off. Sadly there was no link attached to Salton's name, although the citation led one to a computer science article published in 1968. Clicking on the citation yielded the information that Gerard Salton was quite well-known in the field of computer science, so perhaps having his name connected with her theory somehow helps matters. Marcia Bates was not mentioned in his Wikipedia entry.
In conclusion, these three Wikipedia articles need a little bit of editing for grammatical purposes (especially the non-existant "rejoinded"), but overall, were pretty informative. The biggest problem that I had was in the original search term - berry picking vs. berrypicking. A simple space changed the entire set of search results. It would be more efficient if Wikipedia used a more relational approach, and suggested changing my search to "berrypicking", but one can't have everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment